A few years ago, when I got my very first Dyckias, and became quite addicted, I posted a few pics of my new-found treasures on another site. One of those plants... It was mentioned to me that what I obtained as Dyckia Keswick, may not actually be. Also, I got 2...one from a reputable source, and another from a different grower (but very active with Dyckia), and they were identical (still are). But, they don't quite match the beauty and splendor of the original Bill Baker clone that I've seen pics of. This is not to criticize the folks selling those plants I bought, and I still like them for what they are, but to point out that there appears to be quite a bit of hanky-panky going on with the names that plants are being sold with in the World of Dyckia. While the parent plant of seedlings may well be a Dyckia Keswick, that doesn't make the offspring the actual same hybrid. The point is that hybrids are an exact combination of crossing certain plants, and the traits that make up the phenotype (what you see) does not tell the whole story of what is going on genetically. The product (plant in question) is the result of the battle of dominant and recessive genes. The visual evidence tells the story of dominant traits, not the recessive ones. When 2 hybrids, even of the same grex are bred back together, one is going to see a whole new battle, or re-combinations of those genes, with different phenotypes again, with most likely wide variation among the seedlings. There may be some similar to the original, but they won't be the same as the original registered clone, and giving them the same name is not correct, or even very ethical, if I want to push the envelope on that issue.
Anyway, while I was made aware of the issue with my first Keswick some few years ago, and could also follow the information and logic and have an understanding of it...there's nothing like seeing for oneself first-hand exactly how the issue plays out when comparing plants side by side.
So, fast forward to today, I now have a division from an actual D. Keswick, from a plant that came from Bill Baker himself.
In other words, the Real Deal.
In short, it's not the same as what I had. What I had pups prolifically. The real Keswick does not...it divides instead, which makes new plants much more rare and few and far between, and a much more difficult proposition to harvest one from another plant. The "Keswick" plants I had, have produced maybe 20 pups already. The new and real Keswick is dividing, and maybe in a couple of years, if I'm bold and brave enough, I can take a saw to it and hopefully wind up with two. Or, the operation won't be successful and I may wind up with none instead!
The current coloring of this plant is the product of it's previous culture conditions. It will change according to the conditions I provide, probably changing it's appearance in that regard starting next spring. Also, as it matures, the leaves will get longer and look proportionately more skinny later on.
Dyckia Keswick - a real one.
Here's a recent shot of the larger of my two very similar Dyckia Keswick Not Quite (Imposter). No further comment required.
I'm not going to say that a few years of collecting and growing these plants makes me some kind of expert, but I will say there's a world of difference between these 2 plants. One is nice, the other outstanding! The real fact is that there's lots of plants being grown and made available out there, with names that come with them that make one think they are in fact what one thinks they are, or are led to believe through the use of the names attached. However, the truth is that they may well not be exactly what you are being led to believe. Caveat emptor. In the future, my plants previously known as Dyckia Keswick, will henceforth be known as Dyckia Keswick Not Quite.
The Real Dyckia Keswick
- Spination
- Ready to Bolt
- Posts: 5266
- Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 11:06 am
- Location: Sonoma, Ca.
-
- Ready to Bolt
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:00 pm
- Location: Montpellier - France
Re: The Real Dyckia Keswick
There are so many hybrids and especially in the Dyckia genus (At least for the xeric bromeliads, since Aechmea, Neoregelia, Billbergia and so on are widely hybridized also) that in the near future it could be a real mess with the hybrids names thus, it will be hard to know what we grow exactly.
Both plants are interesting but if one have to choose only one, the 'real' Keswisk is preferable.
I was wondering if the head division and the creation of pups could always occur in all cv./species or this could be used to create 'group' - for exemple head division only - pups only - the both - creation of pups before or after head division ?
Both plants are interesting but if one have to choose only one, the 'real' Keswisk is preferable.
I was wondering if the head division and the creation of pups could always occur in all cv./species or this could be used to create 'group' - for exemple head division only - pups only - the both - creation of pups before or after head division ?
- Spination
- Ready to Bolt
- Posts: 5266
- Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 11:06 am
- Location: Sonoma, Ca.
Re: The Real Dyckia Keswick
You're right, I see so many new names popping up, it's so hard to keep up. Also, many have features that barely make them stand apart from the masses. On the whole, I think so many Dyckia now look alike. As such, my "collection" has more or less peaked, as I'm more or less unwilling to get new ones now unless I find them irresistibly appealing (and/or different in an appealing way). When I scroll through Ebay offerings now, I more often that not see "blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...".Luc wrote:There are so many hybrids and especially in the Dyckia genus (At least for the xeric bromeliads, since Aechmea, Neoregelia, Billbergia and so on are widely hybridized also) that in the near future it could be a real mess with the hybrids names thus, it will be hard to know what we grow exactly.
Both plants are interesting but if one have to choose only one, the 'real' Keswisk is preferable.
I was wondering if the head division and the creation of pups could always occur in all cv./species or this could be used to create 'group' - for exemple head division only - pups only - the both - creation of pups before or after head division ?
as opposed to "wow, wow, wow...". There's an awful lot of blahs and not very many wows. I hate to admit it also, but there are even some I have I'd be glad to give back. Hopefully, less than more.
The problem with names used is that someone might procure (for example) a "Keswick" (a hybrid already) or even more than one, reproduce by flower and seed, and then call the progeny the same thing. Among hybrids, this is highly erroneous. As a newby, I found out myself my 1st two "Keswicks" were not actually, but likely "F2"s. The only legitimate way to reproduce true a specific named hybrid, is by clonal reproduction, whether by division or offsets, according to the tendency of the actual plant/hybrid. Of course this method is not going to satisfy a grower who expects to produce a good volume of plants. In the long run, larger numbers of plants will be achieved by seed. I'm talking about cost effective and natural means. I'm not sure how cost effective TC would be in Dyckia, considering my perception they have a rather small niche in the overall plant market.
Where one could take two actual species, breed them together, and perhaps achieve a more or less consistent cast of qualities in the offspring, that is much less so when breeding together hybrids. This has much to do with dominant vs recessive traits. Recessive genes do not generally express themselves in the phenotype, but bred back together, will absolutely find expression in a percentage of the progeny. You'll likely get a much wider range of characteristics with some looking more like either parent, some like the hybrid, and perhaps even others yet somewhat different, as per the remixing of the new combined gene pool. For that reason, I think it is important to use the addition of "F2" when describing/naming such plants, but I'm afraid that many actually and apparently sell their plants as the original named hybrid, if for no other reason, than sheer ignorance of basic genetics, if not actually worse reasons (like knowing but ignoring!). By the way, not to name names, but both of my NOT Keswicks came from sellers of large #s of plants, so there you go. They are nice plants in their own right, but they were absolutely misrepresented, whether by ignorance or intention. Bottom line, is that I thought I had something I had seen out there touted as a fantastic plant (pictures of which show incredibly beautiful plants), and they never did become what I thought they would become, never did and never will measure up, and they are in fact not as advertised for the reasons already explained.
There are so many characteristics that combined within a single hybrid that make it a winner (universally appealing). Also, we have to remember that the original plant may well also have been a single selection of a group of seedlings (not representative of the average). When thinking about meticulous, discerning creators such as Dick Wright or Bill Baker for example, selection and culling would be a likely highly used tool. With many others, very likely not so much. In any case, it is ludicrous to expect that simply breeding the hybrid results back together will produce the same plants as hoped/expected originally - at the very least, not across the board anyway.
As far as your question, I can't really answer. I only know that specifically in the case of the actual named "Keswick" hybrid, that it reproduces by dividing, whereas the "F2"s out there apparently pup like mad. I can't say whether that would be consistent across the board with other hybrids, but I assume that it would not necessarily be the case.
-
- Ready to Bolt
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:00 pm
- Location: Montpellier - France
Re: The Real Dyckia Keswick
Of course, that's the only way.Spination wrote:The only legitimate way to reproduce true a specific named hybrid, is by clonal reproduction
I don't know what is the worst.Spination wrote:They are nice plants in their own right, but they were absolutely misrepresented, whether by ignorance or intention.